CSAR-X goes to Chinook
GPMG
It's by Lewis Page.
You need read no further than that.
You know straight away that you'll get an ill-thought, badly written rant, founded on his habitual and always unsupported assumption that all US kit is always better than any European equipment, and that BAE and Westland in particular are know-nothing incompetents who couldn't design a butter knife that was fit for purpose. He's Jeremy Clarkson without the considered reflection or in-depth knowledge and research (which is worrying) and without the wit.
You have no need to suffer his excruciating grammar ("Sikorsky bathed in gratification"), his faux-casual slang (calling them whirlybirds and veeps doesn't make you any cleverer, nor does it make your piece any funnier or any more readable, Lew) nor must you be exposed to his cavalier disregard of the facts - even a fully equipped RAF Merlin HC.Mk 3 had a 5 tonne payload, and the lighter CH-149 had rather more. Before the Danish Merlins, EH101s had a maximum take off weight of 14,600 kg, but later variants raised this to 15,600 kg, giving a further increase in payload of one tonne.
It's by Lewis Page.
You need read no further than that.
You know straight away that you'll get an ill-thought, badly written rant, founded on his habitual and always unsupported assumption that all US kit is always better than any European equipment, and that BAE and Westland in particular are know-nothing incompetents who couldn't design a butter knife that was fit for purpose. He's Jeremy Clarkson without the considered reflection or in-depth knowledge and research (which is worrying) and without the wit.
You have no need to suffer his excruciating grammar ("Sikorsky bathed in gratification"), his faux-casual slang (calling them whirlybirds and veeps doesn't make you any cleverer, nor does it make your piece any funnier or any more readable, Lew) nor must you be exposed to his cavalier disregard of the facts - even a fully equipped RAF Merlin HC.Mk 3 had a 5 tonne payload, and the lighter CH-149 had rather more. Before the Danish Merlins, EH101s had a maximum take off weight of 14,600 kg, but later variants raised this to 15,600 kg, giving a further increase in payload of one tonne.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice to see people are on the ball
Ramp up if you check my last post on this subject it was a year ago!!
so thanks for the input and all that......
DM
(and I think I detected a hint of sarcasm in GPMGs post)
so thanks for the input and all that......
DM
(and I think I detected a hint of sarcasm in GPMGs post)
Nurse/Jacko,
You keep missing the point. Why not ask the punters what THEY want. It would seem the Yanks did.
Do you want a large force in an LZ at the same time, giving more firepower?
Yes
Do you want more lift capacity?
Yes
Do you want to go faster?
Yes
Do you want a proven option?
Yes
Seen as you are about to launch Apocalypse Now to rescue a lost F16 mate, does a percieved noise surplus bother you?
Nope
The CH47 Vs Merlin downwash is negligble. The Chinook has normally finished with the air though.
You keep missing the point. Why not ask the punters what THEY want. It would seem the Yanks did.
Do you want a large force in an LZ at the same time, giving more firepower?
Yes
Do you want more lift capacity?
Yes
Do you want to go faster?
Yes
Do you want a proven option?
Yes
Seen as you are about to launch Apocalypse Now to rescue a lost F16 mate, does a percieved noise surplus bother you?
Nope
The CH47 Vs Merlin downwash is negligble. The Chinook has normally finished with the air though.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually fly the current CSAR aircraft, I can tell you any one of the three would be ok given the right circumstances/modifications. My problem with the 92 is that I fear once we add all the mission systems and fuel, there won't be much available weight left until we hit max gross weight. This is the problem we currently have with the 60 at sea level. The 101 is the most power limited of the three. The 47 is loud and big. I've seen the block 10 concept for the 47, and it included swept and anhedral tip caps, so it would seem they're thinking about noise and forward speed at least a bit. From what I've read here, I think the 92 would probably be the best choice as far as survivability is concerned. But then again, the available load of the 47 gives me the option of putting on a lot of armor. It's all a trade off. The one question I haven't heard anything about, and is not answerable on this forum is the various aircraft's ability to survive on a radar battlefield.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"is the various aircraft's ability to survive on a radar battlefield."
If my memory serves me well from my SH days the CSAR cab was not going in on it's lonesome, FAR from it.............and anything "lighting up" was getting an early Xmas present in the form of a supersonic whooshbang.................
If my memory serves me well from my SH days the CSAR cab was not going in on it's lonesome, FAR from it.............and anything "lighting up" was getting an early Xmas present in the form of a supersonic whooshbang.................
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we're going to have supporting assets tasked with dealing with any pop up threats. But that doesn't mean we don't have to survive the initial engagement and evade long enough for those supporting assets to destroy the threat.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
britbus,
Apologies as I am awhile out of SH but as I remember it the "package" included some fairly potent help and we were never scheduled to be "out in front" which did give one a sort of warm comfy feeling.........in fact iron sighted small arms/hmg and manpads were the biggest fear as no one knew where those fuc@kers would pop up
Apologies as I am awhile out of SH but as I remember it the "package" included some fairly potent help and we were never scheduled to be "out in front" which did give one a sort of warm comfy feeling.........in fact iron sighted small arms/hmg and manpads were the biggest fear as no one knew where those fuc@kers would pop up
The UK CH47 Wing has operated all over the world, in every terrain, and with just about every threat going, lined up against them.
This is not the forum to discuss results in depth, and busdriver should be able to pick up the info easy enough.
The CH47 is battle proven.
No I don't work for Boeing. Though when an operator sounds like they work for the manufacturer, something is very, very right.
This is not the forum to discuss results in depth, and busdriver should be able to pick up the info easy enough.
The CH47 is battle proven.
No I don't work for Boeing. Though when an operator sounds like they work for the manufacturer, something is very, very right.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All things are a trade off. CH47 is still the taxi of preference for some rather high profile customers, who like to do exactly what NURSE has just described.
CH47 simply offers many options in this role that nothing else (in the UK armed forces) can touch. (Anyone who doesn't already know what these 'options' are, doesn't need to know.)
When noise is crucial, a 'non helicopter' form of insertion/extraction is chosen.
QED
CH47 simply offers many options in this role that nothing else (in the UK armed forces) can touch. (Anyone who doesn't already know what these 'options' are, doesn't need to know.)
When noise is crucial, a 'non helicopter' form of insertion/extraction is chosen.
QED
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quieter than you think.
I standby for lots of abuse from all for this but...the Chinook is surprisingly quiet when flown at extreme low-level and not at extreme power settings. The reasons for this, as I was told, are twofold. Firstly the blade slap noise is a low-frequency noise which doesn't go far after contact with the ground, which is the direction the majority of it goes (i.e. down). This is why the aircraft is known as being noisy because those who work at Benson, Brize or Lyneham will say that they knew a Chinook was coming a long time before it arrived. Typically that aircraft would have been in the instrument pattern at 1500' minimum, not a profile an aircraft on a CSAR mission would be on. Secondly the noise is very non-directional due to it's low frequency, the occasional 'wocca' does get thrown out but it is very difficult to pin point the direction of it's origin. I can say from personal experience that a Chinook has got within 20 sec of my position before I knew with certainty it was coming for me and from which direction, in a mountainous region admittedly. The converse is true of tail-rotor noise (high frequency), so whilst being lower volume it advertises it's presence at comparable ranges and is more easily DF'd (i.e. deciding which direction it is coming from.). My comments on the power settings refer to the fact that in excess of 140 kts the Chinook is very loud and thus loses the benifits mentioned above. Flown for the last 5 miles around 120-135kts this is not a factor. I've flown all of the current RAF inventory and they all have their place in the battlefield, the biggest dissapointment of Merlin not getting the contract was that we were hoping the US would do an 'AV8B' on it. Take a good concept, but limited result, and with their resources turn it into the aircraft it is capable of becoming.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A couple of points.
The main concern about the selection at the moment is that on of the Key performance Parameters (KPP) (time till mission ready after deployment) was changed because the C-47 couldn't meet it. Now either it was a KUR or it wasn't, if it was it shouldn't have been changed without going back through a vigorous review process - which was skipped. Unless someone comes up with a valid explanation as to what happened Boeing may be back in KC-767 country.
The questions about AUW concerning the Merlin may be relevant when considered in light of the ongoing problems with the VH-71.
The main concern about the selection at the moment is that on of the Key performance Parameters (KPP) (time till mission ready after deployment) was changed because the C-47 couldn't meet it. Now either it was a KUR or it wasn't, if it was it shouldn't have been changed without going back through a vigorous review process - which was skipped. Unless someone comes up with a valid explanation as to what happened Boeing may be back in KC-767 country.
The questions about AUW concerning the Merlin may be relevant when considered in light of the ongoing problems with the VH-71.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A critical design review found that the Increment 1 aircraft met the needs of the first phase of the program, but an April systems requirements review revealed that nearly 2,000 design changes would be needed to meet Pentagon requirements for the second round of aircraft. The changes included a new tail, transmission and rotor blades.
Just a few, trivial tweaks.
Just a few, trivial tweaks.
Master of None. You have hit the nail on the head. Of course you can hear a Wokka for miles if it's going quickly at 1500-2000ft, but NoE the noise can be VERY effectively masked by good use of terrain and wind direction. Yes, over an isotropic surface this is not as effective, but, in that case, the visual/IR/Radar signature of a lot of other aircraft will be detected before the noise so the arguement is pointless.
It all comes back to one simple fact; the Chinook has got TONNES of disposable, ie growth, that the Merlin/S-92 will simply never achieve. The USAF have learnt that lesson with MH-53.
If you want to go a long way, land somewhere at high DA, carry enough troops for a GPP, fit armour and decent weapons and be independent of wind direction then the CH47 is the only way to go.
As Tandem Rotor says, the CH47 is the platform of choice for UKSF (for most roles) and SOCOM - it must be doing something right.
Oh, and survivability, the Chinook is by far the most survivable IMHO...not just because of armour/DAS, but also because of the tandem rotor layout.
We're not going to discuss the RCS here, but,having done an awful lot of EW in the Chinook, the right training and TTPs enable the aircraft to cope just fine in the Radar fight.
But back to the central point, does the USAF need a CSAR ac this capable as a MH-60 replacement?
It all comes back to one simple fact; the Chinook has got TONNES of disposable, ie growth, that the Merlin/S-92 will simply never achieve. The USAF have learnt that lesson with MH-53.
If you want to go a long way, land somewhere at high DA, carry enough troops for a GPP, fit armour and decent weapons and be independent of wind direction then the CH47 is the only way to go.
As Tandem Rotor says, the CH47 is the platform of choice for UKSF (for most roles) and SOCOM - it must be doing something right.
Oh, and survivability, the Chinook is by far the most survivable IMHO...not just because of armour/DAS, but also because of the tandem rotor layout.
We're not going to discuss the RCS here, but,having done an awful lot of EW in the Chinook, the right training and TTPs enable the aircraft to cope just fine in the Radar fight.
But back to the central point, does the USAF need a CSAR ac this capable as a MH-60 replacement?
At last!
Some voices of reason.
Nurse - You and Jacko can bang the noise drum as much as you like whilst pointing to the 'quiet' Merlin, but it's actually a trivial issue.
As is pointed out, where noise is such a critical issue, sending a Merlin will make no difference, and the guys will make other arrangements which don't involve helicopters.
Whilst quieter than a wokka, the Merlin's not exactly equipped with a Blue Thunder 'whisper mode'.
If it's not an issue, but range/payload/survivability are, then the Merlin is second or third choice. Ask your own branch at Bastion. They only want one aircraft type. Big, noisy and potent. And that's just the Aircrew
Some voices of reason.
Nurse - You and Jacko can bang the noise drum as much as you like whilst pointing to the 'quiet' Merlin, but it's actually a trivial issue.
As is pointed out, where noise is such a critical issue, sending a Merlin will make no difference, and the guys will make other arrangements which don't involve helicopters.
Whilst quieter than a wokka, the Merlin's not exactly equipped with a Blue Thunder 'whisper mode'.
If it's not an issue, but range/payload/survivability are, then the Merlin is second or third choice. Ask your own branch at Bastion. They only want one aircraft type. Big, noisy and potent. And that's just the Aircrew
Oh, and survivability, the Chinook is by far the most survivable IMHO...not just because of armour/DAS, but also because of the tandem rotor layout.
RODF,
This is not a comment on survivability if you lose a TR, but rather that the Chinook, due to the design, can take hits that other RW platforms wouldn't survive. Not surprisingly, this is due to the fact that the flight safety critical components are spread around the airframe, many are duplex systems, there is plenty of empty space for rounds to pass through and there is the judicious use of armour plate. Add in outstanding single-engine performance, good (and improving) DAS , an over-engineered airframe (witness how many have ripped of undercarriage legs/hit ships etc and carried on flying) and hard-worn battle experience in every major western conflict since Vietnam and you have one very survivable aircraft.
This is not a comment on survivability if you lose a TR, but rather that the Chinook, due to the design, can take hits that other RW platforms wouldn't survive. Not surprisingly, this is due to the fact that the flight safety critical components are spread around the airframe, many are duplex systems, there is plenty of empty space for rounds to pass through and there is the judicious use of armour plate. Add in outstanding single-engine performance, good (and improving) DAS , an over-engineered airframe (witness how many have ripped of undercarriage legs/hit ships etc and carried on flying) and hard-worn battle experience in every major western conflict since Vietnam and you have one very survivable aircraft.
